Whats your opinion on crowd funding at the moment? It's nice to see old-school devs or people with brilliant ideas get funded directly by fans. no more money to publishers, taxes etc.. but 100% goes to developers. I'm pretty sure big publishers are afraid of this.

I am not so sure, the big publischers are afraid of this. Although some CF projects raise very respectable ammounts of money, like hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions, its still another league. So the indie devs etc would not have to rely on CF, if the big publischers were actually interested in their projects in the first place.

But with more and more successful funded projects, and media attention, this will get more and more mainstream. And then the publishers maybe want to tap into that market themselfes. I can perfectly imagine EA opening some "indie support - CF website" branch themselfes in the future.

1. So far it's v v positive for devs and players

• Eg you take a bunch of guys who dream of getting their idea off the table and onto "your" screen and it's really making this happen.
• iOS/Android and Digital market places as well as large studios off-laying devs around 2008 -> lots of indie start ups = more diversity and experimentation = v v positive for players and the industry. Kickstarter is aiding this/another avenue
• More indie/niche projects get to see the light of day. Most of these atm don't affect mainstream anyway. Target Audience potentially can back to the hilt their preferences more prescriptively.

• engenders a positive vibe; like-minded/interest/vested ppl collaborating.
• I'd say small contributions collectively is best working practice for crowd-sourcing, asking for large contributions or earning excessively more cash than required, sits less well with me.
• Double-Take has galvanized kickstarter usage, but personally this project got so large, imo it's a different beast at a certain size?

• Banner Saga: TBC + story + multiplayer
• Shadowrun: PnP emphasis to the game hopefully design will stick to this, no publisher wanting more actiony $'s
• FTL: roguelike has some serious backing, interesting niche design
• Star Command: iOS/Android: is making a push for substantial game de rigeur on this platform; xcom/sims/fallout lots of inspirations - nice to see a great idea germinate and fingers crossed produce an interesting title that = same as devs intended without budget or publisher pressures.

Overall I like the idea, but I'm worried about whats going to happen.

I mean, so far we have yet to see any of the results from tI'his. What will happen if some company fails to deliver a product after getting all this money from fans? 

I just feel like this some of these companies might be rushing into this after seeing the success with the Double Fine Kickstarter.  Are they all really prepared to make these games and not crap out on us halfway through the develpment?

I find it hard to believe that just because there is no publisher involved, the same problems that often kill a project can't happen to these companies. How many of them are going to be successful at this?

If a high perentage or all of them are successful and actually release the games, then it will be good. I just don't think this is a sustainable source of funding for these companies.

There is no return on investment for the people that are giving them this money. They may get some swag, a copy of the game, and their name in the credits, but how should they feel when one of these games is a mega-success? If you donate 100 dollars to a company, and they take in a million dollars overall from Kickstarter but go on to make 50 million dollars off the game, then what do the "investors" get?

It definitely takes away the risk from investment, but it also takes away the reward.  Most people probably don't care, they just want to have the game that they love remade. I have no problem with that, it's fine. But these companies are essentially going to be developing video games at no cost to themselves. No matter what they make it's all profit because the cost was shouldered by consumers.

And if the game fails to release or is terrible or takes ten years to come out, the people that get screwed are gamers. 

Edit: I don't want to be entirely negative. Those are just my reservations. I think this is going to allow us to play games that would otherwise not be made and that is a good thing.  I am just worried that some companies won't hold up their end of the deal

I think its going to be great for a while.

Then some people will majorly fuck up and people will want their money back and get really pissed.  I am guessing some class action lawsuits may eventually come into play.

Then we will see what people really want to risk.  Right now its all based on well for lack of a better word; stereotypes.  Some its based on deserved reputations.  But for anything where you have no idea who these people are or whether they are worth anything.  People won't truly act "rationally" as economists use the term until they see what some investors have lost over time.

In a few cases it should work either way.  I would have funded Wasteland 2 no matter what because a) I like Brian Fargo's stuff and b) I never paid for the original Wasteland when I was a kid.

This situation is the same that investors have had to deal with for thousands of years.  But most people are not in a position to risk their money in this way that often.  Right now I do not think the risk is fully realized so we are in the halcyon days at the moment.

A few things that seem to work atm:

1) New Player element - for punters, kickstarter is getting some interesting ideas and bypassing a lot of publisher-laid on "to market" ideas/press-releases, which is very refreshing! Eg goldie-oldies for one last hurrah! ; Eurika-idea manna straight from heaven... etc These in themselves are positive pitches/stories to get involved with.

2) A bit like a lottery ticket, for the price of a cappachino, you can buy "hope"/"a little slice of a dream". I think if you invest SMALL the value of this is really good and so what if the end-product is not the earth shattering straight to #1 in the charts...

------------------

So my personal caveats are:

1) IDEA is really SOLID.

2) CONTRIBUTION is TOKEN

Eg I'd not really want to fund:

• >$5
• Target is already well over achieved
• project size of target greater than 50K; perhaps a backer size limit*
• project is practically made - extra cash is just pure profit upfront.

1. Great Idea
2. Great Campaign (ie vid)

1. Big Name(s) devs -> confidence/expertise/professionalism to above.
2. IP Resurrection -> former fan base tapped

Originally posted by Lence

Whats your opinion on crowd funding at the moment? It's nice to see old-school devs or people with brilliant ideas get funded directly by fans. no more money to publishers, taxes etc.. but 100% goes to developers. I'm pretty sure big publishers are afraid of this.

I doubt any major publisher fears this, and I think more indie and small studio devs should take advantage of  it.  Setting a project in motion and to a state solid enough to warrant even fan investment, though, is paramount.

As engines and software gets cheaper, however we're going to see more and more people with a downloaded engine and a 'great idea' trying to pass themselves off as game developers (excuse me... game designers) and polluting what could possible a decent avenue for real indie teams to get the funding they need.

Kokatu article:

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/03/why-kickstarter-is-best-for-old-games-dead-genres/

Makes the distinction for old genres/ip's; big names for crowd sourcing where the big publishers are not proving for these. Good contribution I think to where this is/could go.

Why InXile, Wasteland 2 are better off without a publisher

QUOTE OF THE WEEK!!

"The great part about this game being funded by the fans is that I don't need to figure out how to get to a different audience," Fargo said. "I've had a lot of people ask me, 'Well, what will you do for the console crowd?' But it doesn't matter!"

Further comments:

The original Wasteland RPG, developed by Interplay, released in 1988 and was published by EA. Wasteland's successor, the Fallout series, might still be going strong, but Fargo noted even that classic franchise has changed quite a bit to suit a broader audience.

 

"For Wasteland 2, the PC is the root of the product. The Fallout series, at least for now, is focused more at a console group, and for me, there's a major difference. There's a lot of people that loved Fallout 1 and 2, and Fallout 3 just isn't what they want. To me, Wasteland 2 is for those people," he said.

 

And since those nostalgic players are providing the funding for the game, Fargo said he's doing everything he can to ensure that their voices are heard. Fargo pointed out that Kickstarter backers won't have a final say on the game's content, but InXile wants to keep communication channels open so the team doesn't miss any key feedback.

 

[....]

 

While he chose not to delve into specifics, Fargo said he's had some rough experiences working with publishers, and he's glad to be moving away from that model.

 

"I don't want to come across as negative, but my experiences with publishers were 100 times worse than what you might have seen in our Kickstarter video," he said.

 

A few more articles on this subject, worth a read (kickstarter focus):

http://www.ingame.msnbc.msn.com/technology/ingame/success-advice-concerns-abound-kickstarter-arcade-711712

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/SladeVillena/20120411/168307/News_from_the_Kickstarter_Underground.php

To those that dont like the idea (dont include me,) don't worry, as some mainstream music artists/bands discover that and then big music labels see that they discovered that. They will find a way to ban those websites.

^Hmm this is stickied now; I checked the other thread and it seems to have broadened into "revolution in gaming" more general topic on gaming trends?

Here's an interesting piece of how crowd sourcing could go wrong (& does go wrong!) and how when more ppl get the final funded game, that might lead to more reevaluation of the worth of backing...

Trust In Crowd Funding:

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/GaryDahl/20120412/168436/Trust_in_Crowd_Funding.php

However as long as there are "pushy publishers" such as EA: 

'Tetris'-Loving iPad Owners Just Got EA'd Hard

Looks like crowd sourcing is going to be a breath of fresh air for some time to come... 

Couple of articles on Warballoon Games: Update #19: What the hell did you do with our money?

A few lessons to be learnt for running a financially tight Kickstarter Campaign, discussed:

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/04/16/star-command-devs-transparent-about-where-kickstarter-funding-we/

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/168618/Star_Command_dev_shares_realities_of_costs_after_Kickstarter_funding.php

I have mixed feelings about CF, but if people wanne fund a game they think its worth there money who am i to argue right?

Im already bit sceptic about the pre-purchase of GW2 let alone pay before you even know much about game.

And who can you trust these days on internet are people willing to give money to total strangers becouse they tell them they gonne make a game they love, im amazed people so easely pull some paper out of there wallets for a project they dont know nothing about?

The gamasutra article shows clearly that its risk giving money to total strangers lol.

Originally posted by GroovyFlower

I have mixed feelings about CF, but if people wanne fund a game they think its worth there money who am i to argue right?

Im already bit sceptic about the pre-purchase of GW2 let alone pay before you even know much about game.

And who can you trust these days on internet are people willing to give money to total strangers becouse they tell them they gonne make a game they love, im amazed people so easely pull some paper out of there wallets for a project they dont know nothing about?

The gamasutra article shows clearly that its risk giving money to total strangers lol.

^The devs have joked oft, about blowing it on hookers and coke... what else are you supposed to do in 5* hotel rooms?! 

Check Banner Saga as a good candidate for kickstarter: 1) dev track-record 2) amount 3) genre ; there are some good ones and it's more about the "the crowd" small amounts cumulatively -> if enough ppl are interested, that's all it takes for any game to find it's audience.

Some interesting advice from Tim Schafer on Kickstarter pitches:

TIM SCHAFER’S TOP 5 PITCH TIPS FOR KICKSTARTER SUCCESS

1. Prove why the game has to be made.
2. Prove why the game has to be made in a certain way.
3. Prove why your team is the one-and-only team to make it.
4. Prove why it’s critical the game is made now.
5. Prove that it’s more than game, it’s a significant event and fans need to be a part of it.

This is why I love Fargo, and I hope Wasteland 2 goes into some solid directions.

Originally posted by GroovyFlower

I have mixed feelings about CF, but if people wanne fund a game they think its worth there money who am i to argue right?

Im already bit sceptic about the pre-purchase of GW2 let alone pay before you even know much about game.

And who can you trust these days on internet are people willing to give money to total strangers becouse they tell them they gonne make a game they love, im amazed people so easely pull some paper out of there wallets for a project they dont know nothing about?

The gamasutra article shows clearly that its risk giving money to total strangers lol.

 

I already have given EA and other publishers more then 300 dollars for shit overly hyped games I wasn't allowed to play before hand.  How is this any different then giving my money to EA or another overly large publisher that treats devs like crap for a game that may or may not be good?

There are no guarantees. Treat it like a lottery ticket or the crap tables and spend what you can afford to lose.

While the idea has lots of merit, there are always the jerks who will take your money and run or fail to deliver (which is basically the same thing at the end).